Skip to main content
Glama
philipp-mlr

monica-mcp

by philipp-mlr

monica_debt

Manage debt records by listing, creating, updating, or deleting debts with details like amount, reason, status, and contact direction.

Instructions

Manage debts. Actions: list, get, create, update, delete. ⚠️ delete is irreversible.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoEntity ID (required for get/update/delete)
pageNoPage number
limitNoPage size (max 100)
actionYesOperation to perform: list | get | create | update | delete. "list" = paginated list, "get" = by ID, "create" = new record, "update" = modify by ID, "delete" = remove by ID (irreversible).
amountNoDebt amount
reasonNoDebt reason
statusNoDebt status: 'inprogress' or 'complete'
in_debtNoWho is in debt: 'yes' (user owes contact) or 'no' (contact owes user)
contact_idNoContact ID
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description warns that delete is irreversible, which is useful. However, it lacks details on other behavioral aspects like authorization needs, side effects of updates, or rate limits. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and to the point, with no wasted words. It could be more structured, but it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (9 params, no output schema), the description is minimal. It fails to explain how the action parameter drives behavior or the overall workflow, leaving some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing actions, so it meets the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it manages debts with explicit CRUD actions (list, get, create, update, delete). The sibling tools are for different entities, so it is distinct and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/philipp-mlr/monica-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server